¶ 2. Defendant was discovered in the basement of a residence located at 625 Route 15 in Johnson, Vermont, in the early morning hours of January 31, 2008. Upon hearing “someone ... in the basement hollering,” the two residents called 911. Defendant remained in the basement until police arrived, and one of the residents testified, “I don’t believe that he could find his way out.” At around the same time that the 911 call was made concerning defendant’s presence in the 625 Route 15 basеment, the Lamoille County Shemffs Department also received a complaint of a burglary alarm going off at an antique shop located at 23 Foote Brook Road, a location within 200 yards of the Route 15 residence.
¶ 3. Two officers were called to the scene. The first officer testified that he removed defendant from the basement and immediately detected an odor of alcohol. The officer noticed that defendant’s “eyes were red and bloodshot and he was unsteady on his feet, swaying.” Apparently because of defendant’s problems with balance, the officer testified that “a couple of
¶ 4. Upon investigation, officers discovered defendant’s vehicle pulled over to the side of the road and observed smoke coming from the vehicle, apparently from a fit cigarette that had been left smoldering in it. Officers also discoverеd footprints leading from the car to an antique shop located across the road at 23 Foote Brook Road. There are two buildings that make up the shop (a barn and farmhouse), and both contain antique merchandise. Damage was done to both buildings. The glass panel to a french door of the barn had been smashed, apparently with a large rock. In the barn, there was broken merchandise strewn on the floor. Drawers of cupboards, dressers, and chests were open and merchandise was spilling out of them. One of the owners of the shop testified that “there were several items that had been opened and shifted around. There were numerous glass items of various kinds ... and different bits had fallen and been broken.” There werе also footprints leading from the barn to the farmhouse part of the store. The front window of the farmhouse was smashed and the entryway was cluttered. The owner of the store testified that “multiple items from the right-hand side of the shop were strewn on the floor.” Though there was obviously damage done to both the buildings and merchandise, the owners reported nothing missing. Footprints werе also observed leading from the farmhouse across the street to the basement door of 625 Route 15, where defendant was subsequently apprehended.
¶ 5. Defendant was charged with unlawful trespass, unlawful mischief, and burglary. During the trial, defendant moved to dismiss all counts pursuant to Rule 29 of the Vermont Rules of Criminal Procedure. With respect to the burglary charge at issue on apрeal, defense counsel argued that the count should be dismissed “on the intent of it” (presumably referring to an argument that the specific intent element of burglary was not met). The court denied the motion. At the close of arguments, the court gave a jury instruction, including the details of the elements of all three counts, to which neither party objected. The jury found defendant guilty of аll three counts. This appeal — which involves only the burglary conviction — followed.
¶ 6. On appeal, defendant argues that: (1) the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to establish that defendant possessed the intent to commit larceny; therefore, the burglary charge should not have been submitted to the jury; and (2) the jury instruction on the intent element of the burglary chаrge was so confusing as to amount to plain error. We address each claim in turn.
I.
¶ 7. We first address defendant’s claim regarding the sufficiency of evidence to support the intent element of the burglary charge. At the close of evidence, defendant moved for acquittal of all three counts, claiming that there was simply not
¶ 8. We review denial of a dеfendant’s motion for acquittal de novo, considering “whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State and excluding any modifying evidence, fairly and reasonably tends to convince a reasonable trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Ellis,
¶ 9. Defendant was convicted under 13 V.S.A. § 1201(a), which states that “[a] person is guilty of burglary if he or she enters any building or structure knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, with the intent to commit a felony, petit larceny, simple assault or unlawful mischief.” One of the essential elements of this offense is the existence of a specific intent — here, to commit a larceny. To support a conviction where specific intent is an element of the offense, we have held that there must be some testimony in the case evidencing criminal intent and that such “testimony must be sufficient to justify a jury finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Sorrell,
¶ 10. Here, though nothing was missing from the antique shop, the State presented evidence of smashed doors and windows, merchandise strewn on the floor, and open drawers, cupboards, dressers, and chests with merchandise spilling out of them. Bootliner footprints in between the two buildings that make up the antique shop indicated that defendant forcibly entered the first building in which merchandise was stored, rifled through drawers, cupboards and dressers, and then forcibly entered a second building in which merchandise was stored and did the same. The State also presented evidence that it was
¶ 11. From this evidencе, the jury could infer that by breaking the door late at night defendant attempted to enter the shop undetected, that after rummaging through various drawers and other places defendant was unable to find anything to steal at the first building, and that defendant continued to the second building in hopes of better luck there. Further, the fact that nothing was actually stolen is not dispositive of the intеnt element; circumstantial evidence of disturbed merchandise or valuables may indicate an intent to steal. See
State v. Ingerson,
¶ 12. We note that, contrary to defendant’s assertions, the situation here is distinguishable from the situation we addressed in
Savo,
¶ 13. Defendant also argues that evidence of his obvious intoxication precluded the State from meeting its burden on the intent element. Evidence may be
presented that voluntary intoxication resulted in a defendant’s inability to form the intent necessary to commit a specific intent crime.
State v. Kinney,
¶ 14. Though defendant presented evidence of his intoxication, the evidence was not so overwhelming as to justify taking away the question of intent from the jury. The odor of alcohol emanating from defendant and defendant’s obvious unsteadiness and confusion must be weighed against all of the evidence presented (e.g., evidence that drawers and cupboards were rifled through). It was up to the jury to weigh this evidence and determine whether defendant had the requisite intent. We addressed a similar argument in
Kennison,
II.
¶ 15. Defendant next argues that the jury instruction regarding the specific intent element of the burglary charge was so misleading as to amount to plain error. Defendant contends that: (1) the detailed discussion of the elements of larceny amounted to a confusing “instruction within an instruction,” and (2) the language used to describe larceny conflated the act of throwing a rock through a glass door with the element of intent to commit larceny.
¶ 16. Because defendant did not make a timely objection to the trial court’s charge, our review is necessarily limited to plain error.
State v. Viens,
¶ 17. When evaluating jury instructions, we necessarily consider the instructions in their entirety “to determine if
they sufficiently guided the jury and did not have a prejudicial impact on their deliberations.”
State v. Jones,
¶ 18. As discussed above, under 13 V.S.A. § 1201(a), the crime of burglary requires a specific intent to commit a
¶ 19. Defendant first argues that the court’s inclusion of the elements of larceny within its jury instruction regarding the burglary charge amounted to an impermissible and confusing “instruction within an instruction.” With regard to the burglary charge, the jury instructions first set out the elements of burglary and the burden of proof the State must meet:
Again, the State must prove each of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [T]he essential elements are as follows: That [defendant] entered the barn. When [defendant] entered the barn, hе knew he was neither licensed nor privileged to do so, and at the time of the entry [defendant] intended to commit a larceny.
The district judge then went on to describe the elements of larceny:
The last essential element in this offense is that at the time of entry [defendant] intended to commit a larceny. The essential elements of larceny are that [defendant] stole money or property of the owner or person in lawful possession by an unlawful taking, and that the money or property was taken away from the actual or constructive possession of the owner or person in possession. That [defendant] intended to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession of this money or property currently and that the stоlen money or property had a value — monetary value. . . . The third element is that the money or property was taken away from the actual or constructive possession of the owner or person in lawful possession. . . . The fourth element is that [defendant] intended to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession of his or her money or property permanently.
¶ 20. Because we conclude that inclusion of “an instruction within an instruction” in a burglary charge is actually a wise practice, we cannot agree with defendant that inclusion of the elements of larceny amounted to plain error here. Why this is the “better practice” is clear: to determine whether a defendant had the requisite intent to commit a crime, a juror would have to know the elements of that crime. See
Smith,
¶ 21. We must also reject defendant’s argument that the instruction confused jurors into thinking that they could convict defendant of burglary merely for damage to the barn or the store. In support of his claim, defendant points to the following language from the trial court’s jury instructions: “Here the State alleges [defendant] stole money or property of the owner or person in possession by throwing a large rock to break the glass and plastic in the door of the barn and breaking the glass panel in the front door.” Defendant takes this piеce of the jury instructions out of context. See
Jones,
Affirmed.
Notes
In his brief, defendant assumes that we will review the denial of his Rule 29 motion under a plain error standard of review because the issue was not properly preserved at trial. We note, however, that because defendant’s Rule 29 motion came at the close of evidence we need not employ plain error review and will review the denial of the Rule 29 motion under the standard outlined above.